Research Methods

and Ethics
Building Blocks of Research:
Philosophy of Science

LS601

Henning Horn, Ph.D.

 Overview of the next several lectures

- The Scientific Method

- The Philosophy of Science
- How to identify a research question
- Hypothesis
- Aims
- Designing Experiments
- Funding
- Executing Experiments
- Collecting Data
- Analyzing Data
- Reproducibility
- Dissemination of findings
 The Scientific Method

What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method represents an orderly approach to addressing a

question or problem.

According to the dictionary, it is

“a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th
century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment,
and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
The Scientific Method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 The Scientific Method

Why do we need a scientific method?

Being able to make generalized statements about our natural world

helps us to understand our world, and to apply our knowledge to new
problems.

But in order for us to do so systematically and safely, we have created

“rules” for how to do so properly
 Development of the Scientific Method

When was the Scientific Method Developed?

The scientific method developed over time. No one person is solely responsible for
developing the scientific method.

Aristotle (284-322 BCE)

Aristotle advocated a cycle of inductive and deductive processes.

-Induction from observations to form general principles which should then

be tested deductively against more observations. This cycle should continue
to produce scientific knowledge.

What does inductive and deductive mean?

Inductive: characterized by the inference of general laws from particular
instances.
Deductive: characterized by or based on the inference of particular instances
from a general law.
 Development of the Scientific Method

Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazen) (953-1040)

“Amongst the array of great [Muslim] scholars, al-Haytham

is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His
scientific method involved the following stages:

1. Observation of the natural world

2. Stating a definite problem
3. Formulating a robust hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5. Assess and analyze the results
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7. Publish the findings”
https://explorable.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method

The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth
is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and ... attack it from
every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of
it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.
— Alhazen
 Development of the Scientific Method

Renaissance

Roger Bacon (~1214-1294)

One of the first advocates for the modern

scientific method, based largely on Aristotle
and Robert Grosseteste, who was also
influenced by Al Haytham.

Advocated a cycle of observation,

hypothesis, experimentation, as well as
independent verification.
 Development of the Scientific Method

Enlightenment
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Promoted the use of

experimentation as a research tool.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Said that experiments should not only

be used to prove hypotheses, but to
add knowledge in a more general way.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Emphasized the mind and rational thinking; he

also believed that one could formulate a
hypothesis without experimental evidence.
 Development of the Scientific Method

The Modern Scientific Method

Isaac Newton (1643-1727)

He took the thoughts of Bacon and Descartes and emphasized the

experimental approach. He called them “ruled of reasoning”

“1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
sufficient to explain their appearances.
2. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same
causes.
3. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and
which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be
esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
4. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general
induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any
contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, until such time as other phænomena occur,
by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
Each of these individuals wrestled with the process of how to obtain
scientific knowledge.
 Lecture Outline

What is Philosophy of Science?

Inductivism

Deductivism

Paradigm Theory
This lecture is based heavily on the lectures of Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene, from the
University of Hannover.

For further reading/viewing:

Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8teUgZcBY
 What is Philosophy of Science?

The following questions are the focus of this field:

What is Science?

Why is scientific knowledge better than other forms of knowledge? (or is it?)

What are the features of scientific knowledge?

There is no ultimate consensus on any of these in the

philosophy of science.

There is also no consensus on whether the philosophy of

science should be normative or descriptive.

Normative: how science should be conducted to produce reliable knowledge.

Descriptive: Observe how science is carried out, and describe the process.
 Historical development

There have been three main schools of thought in philosophy of science that
have evolved over time to try to address these questions.

Inductivism

Deductivism

Paradigm Theory

There are others as well, but these are more modern and not as well
established in the history of science.
 Inductivism

In science and engineering there are singular and general statements.

Singular statements express observed or measured facts

- e.g. This swan in white.
- e.g. The salinity of ocean water at the Pearl is 42 parts per
thousand.

- These statements are easy to verify. You can go and

observe/measure.

General statements come in a number of forms: hyphotheses, theories, laws,

models, regularities.
- e.g. All swans are white.
- e.g. The salinity of sea water in all oceans is 42 parts per
thousand.
 Inductivism

General statements can not be verified in the same way as singular statements
can, because they refer to an indefinite number of facts.

Moving from a singular to a general statement is potentially dangerous and

problematic. (e.g. All swans are white)

BUT general statements are needed in science and engineering:

- For scientific explanations and predictions
- Technical applications

The process of how to correctly move from a singular to a general statement is

called the “problem of inductivism”.
 Inductivism

Inductivism states that scientific knowledge is

gained in two steps”

1) Carefully observe singular facts without any

theoretical prejudice. Record these
observations and singular observation
statements.
2) Generalize singular observation statements to
form a general hypothesis.

Inductivism is a normative philosophy of science.

From the 17th century until the 20th century, this was Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
the dominant approach to science.
 Inductivism

Because general statements are so important, inductivism has three rules which
must be met; inductive generalization is allowed if the following conditions are
met:

Condition 1: The number of observations must be large.

Condition 2: The observations must be made under very different conditions.

Condition 3: None of the observations must contradict the general hypothesis.

 Inductivism

However, there are some problems with inductivism:

1) Condition 2 can never be met.

2) The observation of the facts must be directed – only relevant facts should be
observed. But evaluation of which facts are relevant assumes a pre-existing
theoretical bias. It is therefore impossible to gather “theory-free” facts.
3) Even singular observation statements are not theory free. e.g. “This swan
belongs to the animal kingdom”
4) Generally, we can not always use inductive reasoning for highly theoretical
scientific concepts. For instance, you can not obtain knowledge about DNA
structure by inductive generalizations from observations.
 Deductivisim

Because direct observations are often impossible in modern science, one can not
use the inductive process to generate theories.

The other problem with basic observations is that they are often theory laden.

There is therefore no way to avoid the theoretical elements of science.

Deductivism tries to address these shortcomings of inductivism, by allowing the

introduction of theory at any level of the scientific process.

In deductivisim, theories are not built from theory-free data, but theories are
deductively tested against data.
 Deductivisim

However, theories still need to be tested. In order to differentiate scientific

theories/hypotheses from non-scientific ones, deductivism uses a demarcation
criterion: Scientific hypotheses must be testable.

A scientific hypothesis does not mean it has been accepted or confirmed, it

simply admits a hypothesis to the scientific arena for testing.

“Demarcation Criterion: A hypothesis is scientific if and only if it is emperically

falsifiable, i.e. that there are emperical circumstances imaginable such that the
hypothesis is refuted.” Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene

Thus, scientific hypotheses must be risky.

 Deductivisim

Another difference between inductivism and deductivism

is the process of generating a theory/hypothesis.

In inductivism this is rule driven.

In deductivisim, the production of a hypothesis is not

constrained at all, as long as it is falsifiable/testable.

e.g. Kekule discovered the structure of Benzene to be a

August Kekule
ring. The hypothesis was dreamed up when he was half-
asleep sitting in front of a fire.

The weight of scientific discovery in deductivism rests in

the testing phase.
 Deductivisim

Because of the idea of falsifiability, scientific activity

always tries to disprove hypotheses, not prove
them.

Science is therefore at its root critical.

And a hypothesis can never be proven. This means

that scientific knowledge can never be absolutely
certain.

Sir Karl Popper

1902-1994
Deductivism, or Empirical
Falsification, was formulated by
Karl Popper in the 1920
 Deductivisim

Problems with Deductivism:

There are no provisions in the deductive process for when one can stop testing a
hypothesis.

“In more general terms, the problem consists in this: Any account of the
development of science, must contain the following three elements:
- A principle for the generation of hypotheses
- A principle for the elimination of hypotheses
- A principle for the (perhaps only temporary) acceptance of a hypothesis
that allows for (temporarily) halting tests and accepting a hypothesis in order to
be justified to apply it. “Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene

Without the last principle, one can never stop testing.

The problem with deductivism is that it does not have this third principle.
 Paradigm Theory

Inductivism and Deductivism are normative philosophies.

However, when looking at the history of science, it is clear that there are
discrepancies between these positions and the reality of how science is done.

Paradigm theory is a descriptive theory, that aims to describe the general

development of scientific conduct over time.

For this description, paradigm theory uses the phase model, which subdivides the
scientific development of a field into three phases:

- Pre-normal Science
- Normal Science
- Revolutionary Science.

Thomas Kuhn
1922-1996
 Paradigm Theory

Pre-normal science when several schools of competing thoughts exist.

For example: research into electricity started with several competing schools:
1. Electrostatic attraction generated by friction as fundamental. Repulsion
secondary.
2. Attraction and repulsion as being equally fundamental.
3. Electricity is a fluid.

These schools will have different views of what is fundamental to the field.

When one school of thought makes an extraordinary achievement, such that the
other schools join in, the schools become united, and you now have Normal Science.

This is also referred to as “Maturation of the Field”

Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene

 Paradigm Theory
The practice of Normal Science:

1. The consensus on fundamental aspects of a field provides scientists with a research

framework.
2. The basis of this consensus are paradigmatic solutions to concrete scientific problems,
the so-called paradigms.
3. The research activity is implicitly governed by the paradigms. They function as
examples of successful research
4. Research has analogies to puzzle-solving
-- there is an (implicit) set of rules which constrain the solution process and the
criteria for the identification of complete solutions.
-- There is an expectation of the existence of a solution.
-- Contrary to inductivism and deductivism, the research activity is not seen as
testing or confirming the guiding rules of science – if anything is tested, it is the
scientists! Rather, it is production of new knowledge on the basis of already existing
knowledge.

There is a quasi-dogmatic element: the framework is not called into question. This is
called “quasi-dogmatic” because this sort of dogmatism does not hold forever (see
transition to revolutionary science).
Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene
 Paradigm Theory
Revolutionary Science aims at establishing a new framework for research which makes
normal science possible again.

This is, it aims at new paradigmatic solutions.

In the new framework, some of the significant anomalies must be solvable, and the main
achievements of the old framework must be preserved, or must at least be reproducible.

Competing theories are evaluated according to the scientific values mentioned above
(transition to normal science).

Revolutionary science differs from pre-normal science in that here is a consensus about
the significant anomalies which must be solved, and there is the need to preserve or
reproduce the results of an earlier accepted theory.

Prof. Dr. Hoyningen-Huene

 Conclusions on Philosophy of Science

The Scientific Method is our framework for obtaining scientific knowledge.

Inductivism was the first philosophy of science, which was based on observations
as a first premise,

Inductivism aims to generate general statements based on these observations.

Deductivision was the next philosophy, developed in part to address some of the
problems of inductivism.

Deductivision allows for the generation of general statements, as long as they are
testable. (Falsifiability)

Inductivism and Deductivism are Normative Theories.

 Conclusions on Philosophy of Science

Paradigm Theory is a descriptive theory, trying to formulate what actually

happens in science.

Every field goes through paradigm shifts: Pre-normal science, normal science,
revolutionary science, back to normal science.

At the end of the day, philosophers are still discussing on how to best
characterize what happens in science. There is no consensus on what is scientific
knowledge, or even, what is science.